Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

EVA OLIVER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (09/16/82)

decided: September 16, 1982.

EVA OLIVER, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Eva Oliver, No. 197020.

COUNSEL

Roseann B. Joseph, for petitioner.

Charles Hasson, Assistant Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 99]

Claimant Eva Oliver appeals a decision by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which, affirming the referee's decision, denied her benefits on the basis of willful misconduct.*fn1 We affirm.

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 100]

Because of her husband's illness, the claimant, a retail clerk, sought and received from her employer a leave of absence from September 29 to December 31, 1980, which, at her request, was extended until February 2, 1981.*fn2 The claimant, however, did not return to work when her leave of absence expired and did not resume contact with her employer until approximately March 14, 1981.*fn3 She was notified of her discharge on that day.

In her defense, the claimant asserts that (1) because the company had no formal rules or regulations governing notification, she was unaware of any duty to notify her employer of the date she planned to return to work and (2) that, even if she failed to notify

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 101]

    her employer within a reasonable period of time of the reasons for her absence, she was justified because the depression stemming from her husband's death constituted "good cause."*fn4

Given our limited scope of review, we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to negate the claimant's assertion that she had no knowledge of the employer's notification policies; she knew enough to contact the company when seeking an extension of her authorized leave, and by her own admission, notified her supervisor in late February that she was ready to resume work.

This court has held that willful misconduct exists where there is evidence of absenteeism coupled with a violation of a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.